Froome Vuelta salbutamol problem

tailwindhome

RichN95 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

If he was informed of the result before the Worlds TT, raced and claimed a bronze he can't be considered to be under self suspension and there clearly is no 'time served'

He could be considered from the B sample though. And I'd think some time to consider the A sample would be allowable.

Yeah

I stand corrected there

Principle's the same but from the date of the B sample.

RichN95.

TailWindHome wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

If he was informed of the result before the Worlds TT, raced and claimed a bronze he can't be considered to be under self suspension and there clearly is no 'time served'

He could be considered from the B sample though. And I'd think some time to consider the A sample would be allowable.

Yeah

I stand corrected there

Principle's the same but from the date of the B sample.

He could point to not riding the road race (although I think he never planned to)

larkim

Definitely think self suspensions at the very least need to be activated within a short period of being informed of B test results. By then you've had some time to consider "fessing up" (assuming you've been notified of the A test results) if you think there was some "accidental" use going on. Or even if you're more cynical and know you've just been caught.

The only time I wouldn't consider self suspending myself would be if I was 100% certain that I had not done anything wrong, either accidentally or on purpose.

Official suspensions though should be carried out from the date of the test giving rise to the adverse finding, with financial repayment of any prize money etc won in the interim period. The only flaw I think in that position is that races which you technically shouldn't have been involved in may have been altered by your presence.

Matthewfalle

larkim wrote:

Definitely think self suspensions at the very least need to be activated within a short period of being informed of B test results. By then you've had some time to consider "fessing up" (assuming you've been notified of the A test results) if you think there was some "accidental" use going on. Or even if you're more cynical and know you've just been caught.

The only time I wouldn't consider self suspending myself would be if I was 100% certain that I had not done anything wrong, either accidentally or on purpose.

Official suspensions though should be carried out from the date of the test giving rise to the adverse finding, with financial repayment of any prize money etc won in the interim period. The only flaw I think in that position is that races which you technically shouldn't have been involved in may have been altered by your presence.

Self suspension is a waste of time.

Oh - I've been busted at the Vuelta, I'll self suspend myself from racing from October until March but carry on training at Vuelta levels of exertion until the Giro so essentially I am racing all that time just with a load of team mates/friendly locals pretending to be the opposition..... now that's a waste of time.

Bans should be from the date of the hearing announcing the ban moving forwards otherwise they are just a waste of the paper they are written on.

Anyone suggest any good in back dated bans because I can't think of any.

RichN95.

Matthewfalle wrote:

Anyone suggest any good in back dated bans because I can't think of any.

Not if the athlete has been competing. But if they haven't that should be taken into consideration. It encourages people to come to a swift conclusion.

Otherwise a smart lawyer (on either side) could just delay proceedings until the most convenient time to take the ban is. Contador's original CAS hearing was scheduled for June 2011. It got delayed until November and didn't report until the next February.

Matthewfalle

RichN95 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Anyone suggest any good in back dated bans because I can't think of any.

Not if the athlete has been competing. But if they haven't that should be taken into consideration. .

Sorry dude but if I haven't been competing there is no point of back dating my ban because there is nothing to ban me/wipe me off the records for.

And if I have been competing then ban me all you want because I've already done whatever I did.

Bans from the date of the hearing forwards together with losing palmares/cash prizes for events that you have competed in between date of sample failure and date of hearing.

RichN95.

Matthewfalle wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Anyone suggest any good in back dated bans because I can't think of any.

Not if the athlete has been competing. But if they haven't that should be taken into consideration. .

Sorry dude but if I haven't been competing there is no point of back dating my ban because there is nothing to ban me/wipe me off the records for.

But the reason they haven’t been competing is that period of inactivity can be included in a ban. It doesn’t matter if they wouldn’t normally would have or not.

kingstongraham

I'm all for an element of unfairness when deciding on the appropriate sanctions for drugs bans. It seems apt.

Matthewfalle

RichN95 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Anyone suggest any good in back dated bans because I can't think of any.

Not if the athlete has been competing. But if they haven't that should be taken into consideration. .

Sorry dude but if I haven't been competing there is no point of back dating my ban because there is nothing to ban me/wipe me off the records for.

But the reason they haven’t been competing is that period of inactivity can be included in a ban. It doesn’t matter if they wouldn’t normally would have or not.

No - the reason they haven't been competing if because its winter/they haven't been selected for certain races/etc.

Ban them from the day of the hearing.

I go 180 mph down the M1, right? I get busted and caught, go to court, get banned.

They don't ban me from the day I got caught, they ban me from the day of the hearing.

Matthewfalle

And they are never inactive - if they aren't racing they are training, if they aren't serious training they are trundling/wind tunnel testing/sorting their doping programmes/etc.

larkim

Bans of 12 months or more will always end up banning athletes for periods when they had no intention of competing. It's only when bans are for less than 12 months that the issue even arises, and then it seems to me to be prejudicial to opt to start the ban only at "competition" time if others could start a ban say in June and then expect to serve quite a few months of it in the off season.

The only way around it would be to have bans commencing only from (say) 1st Jan so that punishments are equally spread.

shirley_basso

If you get caught cheating in a sport you typically forfeit the results from that event.

Speeding down the motorway is a different analogy.

Froome hasn't been proven to have broken the rules.

Matthewfalle

Shirley Basso wrote:

If you get caught cheating in a sport you typically forfeit the results from that event.

Speeding down the motorway is a different analogy.

Froome hasn't been proven to have broken the rules.

Yes.

Yes. And no.

Well ...... debatable. I'd say 70 pages of discussion and we should get there.

But if the tribunal bans him it should be from the date of the hearing, not the offence.

blazing_saddles

Matthewfalle wrote:

Ban them from the day of the hearing.

I go 180 mph down the M1, right? I get busted and caught, go to court, get banned.

They don't ban me from the day I got caught, they ban me from the day of the hearing.

That is an excellent argument for any rider under investigation spinning out the process for as long as possible.
Heck, might as well rearrange their season's racing calendar with this in mind.

Vino'sGhost

Rick Chasey wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

Do you think the misuse of salbultamol makes a mockery of fight against doping? I think the fact it is being seen as such a big deal is the mockery.

That the fact this is dragging on over something pretty insignificant, that is to say the alleged potency of this so called PED rather than quantity found, is laughable.

It's about whether the #1 GT rider in his generation misses some racing and loses a GT title.

That's about it.

Contador is #1 though

Vino'sGhost

Matthewfalle wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Anyone suggest any good in back dated bans because I can't think of any.

Not if the athlete has been competing. But if they haven't that should be taken into consideration. .

Sorry dude but if I haven't been competing there is no point of back dating my ban because there is nothing to ban me/wipe me off the records for.

But the reason they haven’t been competing is that period of inactivity can be included in a ban. It doesn’t matter if they wouldn’t normally would have or not.

No - the reason they haven't been competing if because its winter/they haven't been selected for certain races/etc.

Ban them from the day of the hearing.

I go 180 mph down the M1, right? I get busted and caught, go to court, get banned.

They don't ban me from the day I got caught, they ban me from the day of the hearing.

But that's a totally different set of laws, with different standards. Its not even apples and pears, it's more like Apples and Squid

bobmcstuff

Matthewfalle wrote:

Self suspension is a waste of time.

Oh - I've been busted at the Vuelta, I'll self suspend myself from racing from October until March but carry on training at Vuelta levels of exertion until the Giro so essentially I am racing all that time just with a load of team mates/friendly locals pretending to be the opposition..... now that's a waste of time.

Bans should be from the date of the hearing announcing the ban moving forwards otherwise they are just a waste of the paper they are written on.

Anyone suggest any good in back dated bans because I can't think of any.

The whole thing wasn't supposed to have been made public at all, so I'm not sure why he would have self-suspended before then anyway (mid-December?).

It's not like EPO where there is no room for maneuver - B sample comes in and you are screwed, strict liability and no allowable dosage limit. He might yet be cleared, meaning had the proper process been followed the public would only have found out at all due to the self-suspension - which seems like shooting himself in the foot somewhat.

Anyway to your comparison to crimes - time served often is taken into account, if you have been in custody for a long time before the hearing.

Matthewfalle

bobmcstuff wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Self suspension is a waste of time.

Oh - I've been busted at the Vuelta, I'll self suspend myself from racing from October until March but carry on training at Vuelta levels of exertion until the Giro so essentially I am racing all that time just with a load of team mates/friendly locals pretending to be the opposition..... now that's a waste of time.

Bans should be from the date of the hearing announcing the ban moving forwards otherwise they are just a waste of the paper they are written on.

Anyone suggest any good in back dated bans because I can't think of any.

Of
The whole thing wasn't supposed to have been made public at all, so I'm not sure why he would have self-suspended before then anyway (mid-December?).

It's not like EPO where there is no room for maneuver - B sample comes in and you are screwed, strict liability and no allowable dosage limit. He might yet be cleared, meaning had the proper process been followed the public would only have found out at all due to the self-suspension - which seems like shooting himself in the foot somewhat.

Anyway to your comparison to crimes - time served often is taken into account, if you have been in custody for a long time before the hearing.

There's been no time served so full ban time.

Matthewfalle

Vino'sGhost wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

It's about whether the #1 GT rider in his generation misses some racing and loses a GT title.

Ah - now we reach the crux of the matter.

blazing_saddles

Oh looky here, another source.
So, now it must true, cos it's on Twatter.
Forget all those defence rumours,........sorry defence facts, Froome is planning to look very, very sad, say sorry, it was a genuine mistake and ask for a 6 month holiday. :P

https://twitter.com/laflammerouge16/sta ... 5731168257

CuthbertC

Strange change of tune given that Froome has already said the following:

This is something I've always dealt with my whole career and I know what the limits are, I know what the rules are and I've always taken the utmost care to stay within those rules and those limits when treating my asthma.

I know I haven't done anything wrong here. I haven't ever taken more than the permissible dose and I hope that by the end of this process I will be exonerated of any wrong doing.

redvision

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Oh looky hear. Another source.
So, now it must true, cos it's on Twatter.
Forget all those defence rumours,........sorry defence facts, Froome is planning to look very, very sad, say sorry, it was a genuine mistake and ask for a 6 month holiday. :P

https://twitter.com/laflammerouge16/sta ... 5731168257

More here:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/chris-f ... nient-ban/

If true i would expect him to get a 9 month ban as i dont see why he would receive any less than Ulissi.

inseine

Nibalis palmares is starting to look better and better.

joelsim

redvision wrote:

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Oh looky hear. Another source.
So, now it must true, cos it's on Twatter.
Forget all those defence rumours,........sorry defence facts, Froome is planning to look very, very sad, say sorry, it was a genuine mistake and ask for a 6 month holiday. :P

https://twitter.com/laflammerouge16/sta ... 5731168257

More here:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/chris-f ... nient-ban/

If true i would expect him to get a 9 month ban as i dont see why he would receive any less than Ulissi.

Yes, exactly.

joelsim

https://twitter.com/chrisfroome/status/ ... 7231935488

DeVlaeminck

Fair play for quashing that report but if it were to be true I wouldn't blame him if he can get a 6-9 month backdated for an accidental offence verdict.

Richmond Racer 2

Ruh roh

Matthewfalle

Ignore the sycophantic fan boy article (its actually not even worth reading), the comments at the bottom are funny and show exactly how he is dividing opinion.

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/lates ... lingweekly

smithy21

When would we have been expecting Froome to start riding competitively with the Giro in mind, if it wasn’t for this issue?

Algarve? Tirreno-Adriatic?

redvision

smithy21 wrote:

When would we have been expecting Froome to start riding competitively with the Giro in mind, if it wasn’t for this issue?

Algarve? Tirreno-Adriatic?

The article on cyclingnews says mid Feb.
La Gazzetta dello Sport has claimed that Froome, who has not been provisionally suspended, will race for the first time at the Ruta del Sol in Spain from February 14-19. g